"We have to wait and see if the evidence supports this claim before any further judgement can be made." "...don't you find it unfair to assume something you have no evidence of?" You seem to be conversing with yourself :grin:
Not suggesting that at all. Just suggesting that the use of deadly force is not justified (in most states) in instances where you intentionally put yourself into a risky situation.
I am claiming to know that Zimmerman was told not to pursue Martin and Zimmerman can be heard saying that he is going to anyway. If that audio is accurate, then it puts Zimmerman on the scene as the one who made the initial contact. The "returning to the car" defense becomes harder to prove. If Zimmerman can prove that he never made contact with Martin then the whole thing changes ...but the burdon of proof is on Zimmerman. In a civil case where the burdon of proof is lower, I think Zimmerman loses the case. But the courts need to decide if they have enough proof, given the weak laws in FL, to get a conviction. It comes down to interpretation of the law. ...and we KNOW the authors of the law publicly stated this scenario was not how the law was intended to be applied.
Can you give an example of a state statute where putting yourself into a risky situation disallows the use of deadly force? How is putting oneself into a risky situation defined? Can a person still use deadly force if he is walking through a gang's turf and they attack him? What about an attractive woman that walks down a dark alley in her club outfit? Can she use deadly force if someone tries to rape her?
Just putting a quick two cents here. The example that immediately comes to mind is that if you start a fight you cannot claim self-defense. That is putting yourself in a risky situation. As noted we don't know for sure if Zimmerman or Martin started the physical confrontation but the overall point is that Zimmerman felt that Martin was possible threat and chose to follow him. That is much different than an attractive woman walking down a dark alley. In the latter trouble finds the person in the former the person is literally looking for trouble.
Every case is judged on it's own merrits. You can play the hypothetical game all you want but at the end of the day you (the defendant) have to try to convince a judge/jury that your specific situation was "innocent." Looking at THIS CASE, we have Zimmerman's tape recording indicating that he thinks he sees a criminal and that he should pursue. This alone will make it MORE difficult (not saying impossible) for Zimmerman to defend his position of self defense. Most reasonable people would not knowingly approach a criminal. Zimmerman did ...and he was armed. This fact alone makes it harder to justify the use of deadly force. All your other hypotheticals that you posed are irrelevant ...because details matter. One tiny little detail can change an entire case. In this case, the detail we have is Zimmerman on tape saying that he will approach what he thinks is a criminal. ...and then a bunch of stuff happens and Zimmerman shoots Martin. It just makes it harder for Zimmerman's defense attorny's (assuming he has an attorny ...which at the moment he does NOT).
In that scenario you are allowing the alleged criminal to exercise a veto over the free movement of law abiding citizens. While we may support the general proposition that discretion is the better part of valor, do we really want the criminal justice system punishing those who choose valor over discretion?
How are you defining "start a fight"? Is it based on who threw the first punch or who first charged at someone? Would words alone be sufficient to "start" the fight?
That depends. We want to the criminal justice system to put them on trial and if they are found not guilty then it won't punish them. I wouldn't necessarily call killing an unarmed teen who is way under your weight class valor referring to the George Zimmerman case.
Unbelievable. So you want to force otherwise law abiding citizens to have defend their actions in a court of law even when it's quite clear that there is little evidence of criminal wrong doing? That's kind of crazy. And you do know that Zimmerman was not 100 pounds heavier than Martin, or don't you?
I know there is a report that he was 170, that is unverified by anyone reputable. I'll buy that he wasn't 100 pounds heavier, but he was definitely over 170. If a person armed with a firearm takes the life of an unarmed person then I definitely don't think it's too much inconvenience to present the facts in a court of law. Maybe it will help keep people from getting involved in situations where they would be called upon to take someone's life.
That's completely insane. So, if a home invader breaks into someone's house and that person shoots the home invader, you are going to put the homeowner on trial? That's ass backwards.
You are FREE to move however you like. It's the use of deadly force that is at question. There will be many factors that will be evaluated during this case in determining if the use of deadly force was justified. What we know is that Zimmerman intentionally inserted himself into what most people would agree is a risky situation. Is that illegal? Of course not. But if you chose to do so, while armed, then it makes your legal position more difficult (not less difficult) to defend. Again, the authors of the law have publicly stated this.
If the home invader was unarmed, then yes I would. What's ass backwards is thinking your possesions are more valuable than a person's life. They aren't. If a court finds the person was justified in the killing then so be it. But I don't believe taking an unarmed person's life should ever be routine or not have to undergo the utmost scrutiny. That would include making a court appearance and providing information that backs up the need for the use of deadly force.
No, you are not free. You are giving a veto to the criminals. And what's so risky about asking someone what they are doing in the neighborhood? So, if person A sees someone unknown to them in the neighborhood, they are not allowed to ask that unknown person why they are in the neighborhood without losing legal rights? Once again, and you cannot credibly deny this, you are allowing the criminals (or suspected criminals) a veto over the actions of the law abiding citizen. That's nucking futs.
You can ask, just don't be armed when you do it. And don't assume the person doesn't have any business being there.
How the hell is the homeowner to know whether or not the home invader is armed? I mean, how does that go down? "Excuse, kind home invader, sorry to interrupt your criminal rampage here, but could you tell me whether or not you are carrying a weapon. Thanks in advance, and feel free to make your self at home in my home. Please don't kill us or rape my wife or teenage daughter."
